Demystifying China’s trade secrets law in action: a statistical analysis

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2023-09-08 DOI:10.4337/qmjip.2023.02.03
Yang Chen
{"title":"Demystifying China’s trade secrets law in action: a statistical analysis","authors":"Yang Chen","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2023.02.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article attempts to conduct a detailed empirical study on trade secrets litigation in China. In a nutshell, using 33 coding criteria, this article studied 2810 judicial documents published between 2013 and 2021 related to trade secrets litigation. Of the 2810 documents, 745 concerned substantive trade secret issues, with 885 trade secret claims addressed by Chinese courts. The article mainly aims to fill two research gaps in the current literature. First, it is unclear whether, during the past two decades, China indeed provided inadequate trade secrets protection in practice because of its ‘defective’ statutes, as alleged by the US government. Empirical evidence is needed to test whether the previous US criticisms conformed with the working situation of China’s trade secrets litigation. Second, the enforcement level of trade secrets law in books in China remains a myth. The argument that China has adopted a strict trade secret law in books similar to the US has little practical value if China did not enforce the trade secrets law in practice. Empirical evidence is required to demystify the enforcement situation of trade secrets law. This article, thus, fills these two gaps by presenting empirical findings on trade secrets litigation from 2013 to 2021 in China.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2023.02.03","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article attempts to conduct a detailed empirical study on trade secrets litigation in China. In a nutshell, using 33 coding criteria, this article studied 2810 judicial documents published between 2013 and 2021 related to trade secrets litigation. Of the 2810 documents, 745 concerned substantive trade secret issues, with 885 trade secret claims addressed by Chinese courts. The article mainly aims to fill two research gaps in the current literature. First, it is unclear whether, during the past two decades, China indeed provided inadequate trade secrets protection in practice because of its ‘defective’ statutes, as alleged by the US government. Empirical evidence is needed to test whether the previous US criticisms conformed with the working situation of China’s trade secrets litigation. Second, the enforcement level of trade secrets law in books in China remains a myth. The argument that China has adopted a strict trade secret law in books similar to the US has little practical value if China did not enforce the trade secrets law in practice. Empirical evidence is required to demystify the enforcement situation of trade secrets law. This article, thus, fills these two gaps by presenting empirical findings on trade secrets litigation from 2013 to 2021 in China.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
揭开中国商业秘密法的神秘面纱:一个统计分析
本文试图对中国商业秘密诉讼进行详细的实证研究。简而言之,本文采用33种编码标准,研究了2013年至2021年间发布的2810份与商业秘密诉讼相关的司法文书。在2810份文件中,涉及实质性商业秘密问题的文件有745份,中国法院审理了885件商业秘密诉讼。本文主要旨在填补目前文献中的两个研究空白。首先,尚不清楚在过去的二十年中,中国是否确实像美国政府所说的那样,由于其“有缺陷的”法规而在实践中提供了不充分的商业秘密保护。美国之前的批评是否符合中国商业秘密诉讼的工作情况,还需要经验证据来检验。其次,中国图书商业秘密法的执行水平仍然是一个神话。如果中国没有在实践中执行商业秘密法,那么中国在类似于美国的书籍中采用严格的商业秘密法的观点就没有什么实际价值。要弄清商业秘密法的执行情况,需要经验证据。因此,本文通过对2013 - 2021年中国商业秘密诉讼的实证研究,填补了这两个空白。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Pharmaceutical corporate power, traditional medical knowledge, and intellectual property governance in China Book review: Karine E Peschard, Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 2022) 208 pp. Judicial and legislative approaches to employee patent rights in France Page against the machine: the death of the author and the rise of the producer? The universe identification and sampling design of consumer surveys in trade mark lawsuits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1